DOCSLIB.ORG

Phylogeny, Taxonomy, and Nomenclature - a Primer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phylogeny, Taxonomy, and Nomenclature - a Primer Phylogeny, Taxonomy, and Nomenclature - a Primer Phylogeny, taxonomy, and nomenclature are important concepts for how scientists study and conserve Life on Earth, including amphibians. Our goal here is to declutter these concepts and to highlight what these terms mean, how they are related, why biologists rely on these ideas, and how understanding them is important for using AmphibiaWeb. Phylogeny: A phylogeny, or a phylogenetic tree, is a hypothesis (a scientist’s “best guess”) of evolutionary relationships among species. We refer to the phylogeny of all species as the Tree of Life. Phylogenetic trees show the hypothesized relationships among species as a branching pattern of ancestors and descendants. In these trees, lineages (branches) emerge from nodes (where branches meet) that represent the ancestors of currently living organisms (Figure 1). Lineages emerging from the same node, or ancestor, are more closely related to each other than either are to other lineages in the phylogeny. The end of a branch, whether it be a family (as in the family tree) or a species or a specific individual, is called a tip or a leaf (see Fig. 1). Sections of branches that do not lead directly to a tip are “internal branches” that simultaneously represent descendants and ancestors in the phylogeny; that is, they descend from ancestral nodes and lead to descendant nodes. Why is understanding phylogeny important? Phylogenies show us the evolutionary relationships among species, allowing us to study how certain traits (e.g., color, venom, body size) evolve. Scientists study how traits change along branches in a phylogeny to understand how animals diversify and adapt to their environments over time. Phylogenies also provide vital information for conservation. By understanding evolutionary relationships among species, we can try to predict which lineages may be most vulnerable to human-caused environmental degradation like climate change or pollution. Some conservation biologists also try to focus on conserving the greatest evolutionary diversity, ensuring that we protect species that represent many different branches of the Tree of Life rather than protecting many closely related species. How are phylogenies made? Phylogenies can be estimated based on any information about organisms. We could compare differences and similarities in size (e.g., big versus small animals) or color (e.g., green versus black animals), and, in fact, animals were originally grouped based on aspects of their physical appearance or behavior. For example, reptiles and amphibians were historically considered a single group because they were all seen as “creeping animals” (herpeton is Greek for a creeping animal). We now think of this way of organizing reptiles and amphibians as inaccurate because more rigorous analyses of anatomy and genetics revealed that reptiles are more closely related to mammals than to amphibians. 1 Phylogeny, Taxonomy, and Nomenclature - a Primer Today, scientists estimate relatedness (phylogeny) among organisms primarily using differences in DNA sequences of living animals and in the anatomy of their fossil ancestors. For an example of how scientists compare DNA sequences, see Figure 2, which is an alignment of mitochondrial DNA from five Rana species. A simple way to assess relatedness is to count the number of differences in DNA sequences, such as a C versus a T at a particular site (column), between species. View the full DNA sequences on GenBank with the following links: Rana palustris KX269207.1, Rana pipiens KY677811.1, Rana clamitans KY677765.1, Rana catesbeiana KY677760.1, Rana sylvatica KY677767.1. The relationships displayed within a tree are scientists’ “best guess” as how these lineages are related based on the data used in the analysis. As additional data accumulate through new methods and as new species are discovered, these analyses may give different results. This leads to changes in estimates of relationships among studies depending on which types of data and analyses are used. Thus, it is best to consider the phylogeny as representing our current understanding and that it could change with new discoveries. For more information on how to read and use phylogenies, see Understanding Evolution. Key Phylogenetic Terms: Monophyly: When a group of lineages in the Tree of Life includes an ancestor and all of its descendants. This group is called monophyletic (meaning “one branch”) or a clade. Clades can be grouped within each other in a hierarchy. For example, in Figure 3, salamanders and frogs are both monophyletic groups, which are contained along with caecilians in the clade “Amphibians” (ancestral node = 3); amphibians, along with the reptile, mammal, and fish clades, are contained within the clade known as “Vertebrates” (ancestral node = 1). Note that other clades are present in this tree. 2 Phylogeny, Taxonomy, and Nomenclature - a Primer Paraphyly (non-monophyly): If a group of organisms includes an ancestor and only some of its descendants, that group is called paraphyletic or non-monophyletic. Scientists care about distinguishing paraphyletic and monophyletic groups because monophyletic groups provide information about how evolution has occurred (which lineages emerge from which nodes) whereas paraphyly does not. Herpetology, the study of amphibians and non-bird reptiles - together known as “herpetofauna” or “herps” - is the study of a paraphyletic group because the group excludes mammals and birds, which are in fact reptiles. A group containing herps, birds, and mammals would be monophyletic, and this collection of animals would have a common ancestor at node 2 (Figure 3). This clade is known as the “Tetrapods.” Understanding that reptiles are a monophyletic group containing birds helped us find out that feathers evolved from scales, which were present in other reptiles but are absent in amphibians. Polytomy: When an ancestral branch has just two descendants, we call that splitting pattern a dichotomy. If the ancestral branch has more than two descendants, it is a polytomy (meaning cut into many parts). A polytomy means that the relationships among these descendants are uncertain. In Figure 4, frogs, salamanders, and caecilians are shown as a polytomy, meaning that we don’t know which two are most closely related (share a common ancestor). Uncertainties in phylogenetic trees can exist because we have not yet been able to collect enough data to clearly disentangle the relationships among those lineages. Taxonomy: The way we classify lineages and clades within the Tree of Life into named groups is called a taxonomy. Today, biologists generally agree that we should group organisms based on how they are related to each other through evolution. This means that the taxonomy we use should reflect shared ancestry (that is, phylogeny), ideally by organizing individuals and species into monophyletic groups. Taxonomy is organized as a hierarchy. AmphibiaWeb predominantly uses four nested taxonomic levels that describe clades on the Tree of Life: order, family, genus, and species (Figure 5). When appropriate (see Taxonomy considerations), we also use subgenus or subfamily names that provide additional evolutionary information regarding subsets of lineages within certain clades. 3 Phylogeny, Taxonomy, and Nomenclature - a Primer A good example is the Northern Leopard frog, whose scientific name is Rana pipiens. The Northern Leopard frog’s genus name is Rana and its species name (or, “specific epithet”) is pipiens. This species falls into the broader family-level clade of Ranidae, known as the true frogs, which is within the order Anura (Figure 5). The genus Rana is very large (>100 species), so we sometimes also use subgenus groupings to help classify relationships among these species. The subgenus name of the Northern Leopard frog is Pantherana, which literally means “leopard frog”; Pantherana also includes other closely related species like the Pickerel frog (Rana palustris) and a newly-discovered species, the Atlantic Coast Leopard frog (Rana kauffeldi). Another well-known member of the family Ranidae is the American Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), which falls into a different subgenus called Aquarana, which means “water frog”. Green frogs (Rana clamitans) are also in the subgenus Aquarana. A member of the genus Rana that currently has not been assigned a subgenus is the Wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Nomenclature: Rules for how we curate names for lineages and clades. Nomenclature does not necessarily reflect evolutionary relationships or biology, but is simply a set of rules for maintaining stable taxonomy. AmphibiaWeb promotes long-term stability in nomenclature and taxonomy because it helps easily organize information about species. This means that we prefer to keep names of lineages or taxonomic clades constant over time, even as we gather new information about them. AmphibiaWeb chooses to accept or reject proposed taxonomic changes for specific lineages depending on whether the proposed changes both provide useful information for classifying organisms and promote the taxonomic stability of the group. A common misconception is that the newest taxonomy is the best taxonomy. Scientists are technically free to adopt or reject newly published taxonomic changes. AmphibiaWeb 4 Phylogeny, Taxonomy, and Nomenclature - a Primer adheres to a number of criteria to help our community work with the most biologically-informed and useful taxonomy and nomenclature. You can see AmphibiaWeb’s various taxonomy and nomenclature criteria here and the International
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quantum in the Cloud: Application Potentials and Research Opportunities
    Quantum in the Cloud: Application Potentials and Research Opportunities Frank Leymann a, Johanna Barzen b, Michael Falkenthal c, Daniel Vietz d, Benjamin Weder e and Karoline Wild f Institute of Architecture of Application Systems, University of Stuttgart, Universitätsstr. 38, Stuttgart, Germany Keywords: Cloud Computing, Quantum Computing, Hybrid Applications. Abstract: Quantum computers are becoming real, and they have the inherent potential to significantly impact many application domains. We sketch the basics about programming quantum computers, showing that quantum programs are typically hybrid consisting of a mixture of classical parts and quantum parts. With the advent of quantum computers in the cloud, the cloud is a fine environment for performing quantum programs. The tool chain available for creating and running such programs is sketched. As an exemplary problem we discuss efforts to implement quantum programs that are hardware independent. A use case from machine learning is outlined. Finally, a collaborative platform for solving problems with quantum computers that is currently under construction is presented. 1 INTRODUCTION Because of this, the overall algorithms are often hybrid. They perform parts on a quantum computer, Quantum computing advanced up to a state that urges other parts on a classical computer. Each part attention to the software community: problems that performed on a quantum computer is fast enough to are hard to solve based on classical (hardware and produce reliable results. The parts executed on a software) technology become tractable in the next classical computer analyze the results, compute new couple of years (National Academies, 2019). parameters for the quantum parts, and pass them on Quantum computers are offered for commercial use to a quantum part.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomy Development for Knowledge Management
    Date : 24/07/2008 Taxonomy Development for Knowledge Management Mary Whittaker Librarian Boeing Library Services The Boeing Company PO Box 3707 M/C 62-LC Seattle WA 98124 +1-425-306-2086 +1-425-965-0119 [email protected] Kathryn Breininger Manager Boeing Reports Management Services The Boeing Company PO Box 3707 M/C 62-LC Seattle WA 98124 +1-425-965-0242 +1-425-512-4281 [email protected] Meeting: 138 Knowledge Management Simultaneous Interpretation: English, Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Russian and Spanish WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 74TH IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 10-14 August 2008, Québec, Canada http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla74/index.htm Abstract As librarians and information professionals, we are faced with solving a growing information overload problem. We strive to connect end users with the information they need. How can we better connect searchers to the vast amount of information to be found on the web? Information management principles and practices, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies serve as knowledge management tools that we can use to help organize content and make connections between people and the information they need. This paper focuses on the processes associated with taxonomy development, including how to determine the requirements, how to identify concepts, and how to develop a draft taxonomy. It also covers techniques for validating a taxonomy, processes for incorporating changes within a taxonomy, applying a taxonomy to content, and methods for maintaining a taxonomy over time. Throughout the paper, best practices associated with these process steps are highlighted. Page 1 Introduction Information overload continues to be a challenge for our end users.
    [Show full text]
  • Study of ADB's Knowledge Taxonomy
    A Study of ADB's Knowledge Taxonomy Final Report Arnaldo Pellini and Harry Jones March 2011 Knowledge Management Center Regional and Sustainable Development Department The views expressed in this report are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank, or its Board of Governors, or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The countries listed in this publication do not imply any view on ADB's part as to sovereignty or independent status or necessarily conform to ADB's terminology. Contents List of Figures ii Abbreviations ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Purpose and Design of the Study 2 B. Study Questions and Methodology 2 II. KEY FINDINGS 3 A. Finding from the Literature Review 3 1. Taxonomy Structures 4 2. Taxonomy Development 8 B. Main Findings of the Study 8 1. Learning Issues: What is the need for ADB taxonomies? 10 2. Learning Dynamics: Opportunities and Constraints for Taxonomy Development 13 3. Potential Avenues for Taxonomy Development 17 III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20 IV. REFERENCES 23 APPENDIXES INTERVIEWEE INFORMATION 24 SEMI-STRUCTURED QUESTIONS 25 RESPONSES TO THE ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE 26 COMPARATOR ORGANIZATIONS 36 ii List of Figures Figure 1: List Structure 4 Figure 2: Tree Structure 5 Figure 3: Hierarchy Structure 5 Figure 4: Polyhierarchy Structure 6 Figure 5: Two-Dimensional Matrix Structure 6 Figure 6: Faceted Taxonomy 7 Figure 7: System Map 7 Figure 8: Project Governance Structure 20 Abbreviations CoP Community of practice IT Information technology OIST Office of Information Systems and Technology RSDD Regional and Sustainable Development Department iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In September 2010, the Overseas Development Institute was tasked by the Knowledge Management Center in the Regional and Sustainable Development Department in ADB to conduct a study of ADB's knowledge taxonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology and Information Systems
    Ontology and Information Systems 1 Barry Smith Philosophical Ontology Ontology as a branch of philosophy is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes and relations in every area of reality. ‘Ontology’ is often used by philosophers as a synonym for ‘metaphysics’ (literally: ‘what comes after the Physics’), a term which was used by early students of Aristotle to refer to what Aristotle himself called ‘first philosophy’.2 The term ‘ontology’ (or ontologia) was itself coined in 1613, independently, by two philosophers, Rudolf Göckel (Goclenius), in his Lexicon philosophicum and Jacob Lorhard (Lorhardus), in his Theatrum philosophicum. The first occurrence in English recorded by the OED appears in Bailey’s dictionary of 1721, which defines ontology as ‘an Account of being in the Abstract’. Methods and Goals of Philosophical Ontology The methods of philosophical ontology are the methods of philosophy in general. They include the development of theories of wider or narrower scope and the testing and refinement of such theories by measuring them up, either against difficult 1 This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-9975557 (“Ontology and Geographic Categories”) and by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation under the auspices of its Wolfgang Paul Program. Thanks go to Thomas Bittner, Olivier Bodenreider, Anita Burgun, Charles Dement, Andrew Frank, Angelika Franzke, Wolfgang Grassl, Pierre Grenon, Nicola Guarino, Patrick Hayes, Kathleen Hornsby, Ingvar Johansson, Fritz Lehmann, Chris Menzel, Kevin Mulligan, Chris Partridge, David W. Smith, William Rapaport, Daniel von Wachter, Chris Welty and Graham White for helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Taxonomy
    History of Taxonomy The history of taxonomy dates back to the origin of human language. Western scientific taxonomy started in Greek some hundred years BC and are here divided into prelinnaean and postlinnaean. The most important works are cited and the progress of taxonomy (with the focus on botanical taxonomy) are described up to the era of the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus, who founded modern taxonomy. The development after Linnaeus is characterized by a taxonomy that increasingly have come to reflect the paradigm of evolution. The used characters have extended from morphological to molecular. Nomenclatural rules have developed strongly during the 19th and 20th century, and during the last decade traditional nomenclature has been challenged by advocates of the Phylocode. Mariette Manktelow Dept of Systematic Biology Evolutionary Biology Centre Uppsala University Norbyv. 18D SE-752 36 Uppsala E-mail: [email protected] 1. Pre-Linnaean taxonomy 1.1. Earliest taxonomy Taxonomy is as old as the language skill of mankind. It has always been essential to know the names of edible as well as poisonous plants in order to communicate acquired experiences to other members of the family and the tribe. Since my profession is that of a systematic botanist, I will focus my lecture on botanical taxonomy. A taxonomist should be aware of that apart from scientific taxonomy there is and has always been folk taxonomy, which is of great importance in, for example, ethnobiological studies. When we speak about ancient taxonomy we usually mean the history in the Western world, starting with Romans and Greek. However, the earliest traces are not from the West, but from the East.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Nomenclature and Taxonomy an Horticultural and Agronomic Perspective
    3913 P-01 7/22/02 4:25 PM Page 1 1 Plant Nomenclature and Taxonomy An Horticultural and Agronomic Perspective David M. Spooner* Ronald G. van den Berg U.S. Department of Agriculture Biosystematics Group Agricultural Research Service Department of Plant Sciences Vegetable Crops Research Unit Wageningen University Department of Horticulture PO Box 8010 University of Wisconsin 6700 ED Wageningen 1575 Linden Drive The Netherlands Madison Wisconsin 53706-1590 Willem A. Brandenburg Plant Research International Wilbert L. A. Hetterscheid PO Box 16 VKC/NDS 6700 AA, Wageningen Linnaeuslaan 2a The Netherlands 1431 JV Aalsmeer The Netherlands I. INTRODUCTION A. Taxonomy and Systematics B. Wild and Cultivated Plants II. SPECIES CONCEPTS IN WILD PLANTS A. Morphological Species Concepts B. Interbreeding Species Concepts C. Ecological Species Concepts D. Cladistic Species Concepts E. Eclectic Species Concepts F. Nominalistic Species Concepts *The authors thank Paul Berry, Philip Cantino, Vicki Funk, Charles Heiser, Jules Janick, Thomas Lammers, and Jeffrey Strachan for review of parts or all of our paper. Horticultural Reviews, Volume 28, Edited by Jules Janick ISBN 0-471-21542-2 © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1 3913 P-01 7/22/02 4:25 PM Page 2 2 D. SPOONER, W. HETTERSCHEID, R. VAN DEN BERG, AND W. BRANDENBURG III. CLASSIFICATION PHILOSOPHIES IN WILD AND CULTIVATED PLANTS A. Wild Plants B. Cultivated Plants IV. BRIEF HISTORY OF NOMENCLATURE AND CODES V. FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES IN THE CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE OF CULTIVATED AND WILD PLANTS A. Ambiguity of the Term Variety B. Culton Versus Taxon C. Open Versus Closed Classifications VI. A COMPARISON OF THE ICBN AND ICNCP A.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliometric Analysis of the Plant Taxonomy Journal Nelumbo, 2004-2011
    International Journal of Library and Information Studies ISSN: 2231-4911 Vol.2(4), Oct-Dec, 2012 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE PLANT TAXONOMY JOURNAL NELUMBO, 2004-2011 Hemanta Kumar Das Botanical Survey of India, ERC, Shillong-793003, India Mobile:+91-9436312552 [email protected] ABSTRACT This study carried out a bibliometric analysis of 210 papers and 2999 citations published in the journal Nelumbo published by the of Botanical Survey of India for the period 2004 to 2011.Yearwise distribution of contributions in their different volumes, authorship pattern, degree of collaboration, length of papers, citation pattern, average citation per contribution per volume, type of documents and their citations, subject- wise distribution of papers, rank list of cited journals, ranking of contributors have been studied. Joint authorship pattern comes 74.76% which is higher than single authorship pattern. Out of 2999 citations maximum 52.59% are from journals. Number of papers on New Record comes in first place with 20%.The Journal of Hattori Botany Lab. Comes in top in journal rank study which is a foreign journal followed by two Indian journals i.e. Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany and the studied journal Nelumbo respectively. Keywords: Bibliometric analysis, study; Nelumbo; Bulletin of Botanical Survey of India. INTRODUCTION A bibliometric study for a journal is very essential to evaluate the journal and find out year- wise distribution of papers, authorship pattern, citation pattern, length of papers, institution- distribution of papers etc. In 1969 Prichard first coined the term bibliometrics. There are various bibliometric studies has been made in a single journal time to time.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomenclature and Taxonomy
    c01.qxd 8/18/03 4:06 PM Page 5 1 NOMENCLATURE AND TAXONOMY Nomenclature (Scientific ● Common) When casually discussing nature, whether verbally or in print, we typi- cally use pretty informal language. Simple, everyday terms for plants and animals are more than adequate for expressing ourselves. We do not talk about Malus and Citrus sinensis (taxonomic terms) when referring to apples and oranges because it is simply not effective communication. However, we do use such terms when we want to make specific scientific distinctions—say, between the prairie crab apple, which botanists identify as Malus ioensis, and the sweet crab apple, which they have designated Malus coronaria. Because this book deals with differences, many of them technical and somewhat detailed, the reader will encounter quite a few such scientific names, some of which may appear not only needlessly elaborate but also virtually unpronounceable—although nothing as tongue twisting as Paracoccidioides brasilensis, a lung-infecting fungus, or Brachyta inter- rogationis interrogationis var. nigrohumeralisscutellohumeroconjuncta, a longhorn beetle. As for pronunciation, unless one really feels that the word will be used in conversation, there is no need to be concerned with “getting it right.” But why does science eschew common names and instead encumber itself with such a seemingly inexplicable vocabulary? Because, in part, “common” does not necessarily mean “universal.” What may be an organism’s common name in one part of the country may be quite dif- ferent in another, making any initial exchange of information suspect. For example, in the Midwest the thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) is commonly, but mistakenly, called a gopher, which is 5 c01.qxd 8/18/03 4:06 PM Page 6 6 This Is Not a Weasel really the rightful name of a much larger rodent (Geomys bursarius).
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise Architecture Management: Toward a Taxonomy of Applications Fatemeh Rahimi Technical University of Denmark, [email protected]
    Communications of the Association for Information Systems Volume 40 Article 7 4-2017 Enterprise Architecture Management: Toward a Taxonomy of Applications Fatemeh Rahimi Technical University of Denmark, [email protected] John Gøtze IT University of Copenhagen Charles Møller Aalborg University Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais Recommended Citation Rahimi, Fatemeh; Gøtze, John; and Møller, Charles (2017) "Enterprise Architecture Management: Toward a Taxonomy of Applications," Communications of the Association for Information Systems: Vol. 40 , Article 7. DOI: 10.17705/1CAIS.04007 Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol40/iss1/7 This material is brought to you by the Journals at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in Communications of the Association for Information Systems by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected]. ommunications of the C ssociation for nformation ystems A I S Research Paper ISSN: 1529-3181 Enterprise Architecture Management: Toward a Taxonomy of Applications Fatemeh Rahimi Technical University of Denmark Management Science Denmark [email protected] John Gøtze Charles Møller IT University of Copenhagen Aalborg University Denmark Center for Industrial Production Denmark Abstract: Despite the growing interest in enterprise architecture management, researchers and practitioners lack a shared understanding of its applications in organizations. Building on findings from a literature review and eight case studies, we develop a taxonomy that categorizes applications of enterprise architecture management based on three classes of enterprise architecture scope. Organizations may adopt enterprise architecture management to help form, plan, and implement IT strategies; help plan and implement business strategies; or to further complement the business strategy-formation process.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology for Information Systems (O4IS) Design Methodology Conceptualizing, Designing and Representing Domain Ontologies
    Ontology for Information Systems (O4IS) Design Methodology Conceptualizing, Designing and Representing Domain Ontologies Vandana Kabilan October 2007. A Dissertation submitted to The Royal Institute of Technology in partial fullfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Technology . The Royal Institute of Technology School of Information and Communication Technology Department of Computer and Systems Sciences IV DSV Report Series No. 07–013 ISBN 978–91–7178–752–1 ISSN 1101–8526 ISRN SU–KTH/DSV/R– –07/13– –SE V All knowledge that the world has ever received comes from the mind; the infinite library of the universe is in our own mind. – Swami Vivekananda. (1863 – 1902) Indian spiritual philosopher. The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. – Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) German-Swiss-U.S. scientist. Science is a mechanism, a way of trying to improve your knowledge of na- ture. It’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe, and seeing whether they match. – Isaac Asimov. (1920 – 1992) Russian-U.S. science-fiction author. VII Dedicated to the three KAs of my life: Kabilan, Rithika and Kavin. IX Abstract. Globalization has opened new frontiers for business enterprises and human com- munication. There is an information explosion that necessitates huge amounts of informa- tion to be speedily processed and acted upon. Information Systems aim to facilitate human decision-making by retrieving context-sensitive information, making implicit knowledge ex- plicit and to reuse the knowledge that has already been discovered. A possible answer to meet these goals is the use of Ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Studying Taxonomy Enrichment on Diachronic Wordnet Versions
    Studying Taxonomy Enrichment on Diachronic WordNet Versions Irina Nikishinaz, Alexander Panchenkoz, Varvara Logachevaz, and Natalia Loukachevitchy zSkolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia yResearch Computing Center, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia fIrina.Nikishina,A.Panchenko,[email protected] louk [email protected] Abstract Ontologies, taxonomies, and thesauri are used in many NLP tasks. However, most studies are focused on the creation of these lexical resources rather than the maintenance of the existing ones. Thus, we address the problem of taxonomy enrichment. We explore the possibilities of taxonomy extension in a resource-poor setting and present methods which are applicable to a large number of languages. We create novel English and Russian datasets for training and evaluating taxonomy enrichment models and describe a technique of creating such datasets for other languages. 1 Introduction Nowadays, construction and maintenance of lexical resources (ontologies, knowledge bases, thesauri) have become essential for the NLP community. In particular, enriching the most acknowledged lexi- cal databases like WordNet (Miller, 1998) and its variants for almost 50 languages1 or collaboratively created lexical resources such as Wiktionary is crucial. Resources of this kind are widely used in mul- tiple NLP tasks: Word Sense Disambiguation, Entity Linking (Moro and Navigli, 2015), Named Entity Recognition, Coreference Resolution (Ponzetto and Strube, 2006). There already exist several initiatives on WordNet extension, for example, the Open English WordNet with thousands of new manually added entries or plWordNet (Maziarz et al., 2014) which includes a mapping to an enlarged Princeton WordNet. However, the manual annotation process is too costly: it is time-consuming and requires language or domain experts.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taxonomy of Information System Projectsâ•Ž Knowledge-Sharing
    Communications of the Association for Information Systems Volume 41 Article 26 12-2017 A Taxonomy of Information System Projects’ Knowledge-sharing Mechanisms Nora Fteimi University of Passau, [email protected] Jianxiao Cai University of Cologne Dirk Basten University of Cologne Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais Recommended Citation Fteimi, Nora; Cai, Jianxiao; and Basten, Dirk (2017) "A Taxonomy of Information System Projects’ Knowledge-sharing Mechanisms," Communications of the Association for Information Systems: Vol. 41 , Article 26. DOI: 10.17705/1CAIS.04126 Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol41/iss1/26 This material is brought to you by the Journals at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in Communications of the Association for Information Systems by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected]. ommunications of the C ssociation for nformation ystems A I S Research Paper ISSN: 1529-3181 A Taxonomy of Information System Projects’ Knowledge-sharing Mechanisms Nora Fteimi University of Passau Chair of Information Systems with a focus on Information and IT Service Management [email protected] Jianxiao Cai Dirk Basten University of Cologne University of Cologne Department of Information Systems and Systems Department of Information Systems and Systems Development Development Abstract: Despite its criticality to the success of information system (IS) projects, knowledge sharing among IS projects is generally ineffective compared to knowledge sharing in IS projects. Although several mechanisms for knowledge sharing exist in the literature, it is difficult to determine which mechanism one should use in a specific context.
    [Show full text]